Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:40:06 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <4494D926.6040606@xxxxxxx>
| That's a problem when it changes page numbers (which end up being as
| useful as semantic tags) or figures. Or (as importantly) template or
| boilerplate text.
That's only true if the purpose of re-processing is to make the original
document again for some reason - which would only be useful if the
formatted version were not to be archived, but only the source, and I
don't believe anyone is suggesting that.
Archiving the source is useful for people who want to make revisions
- certainly that is possible without the source, and for some source formats
and some later editors, ignoring the source and using the formatted
version might even be preferable - but not always, for many, having the
source available makes things much easier.
If you accept that the purpose of archiving the source is to ease the
production of a revised document, and not to reproduce the original unchanged,
then whether or not the formatting tool would produce the original,
unchanged, is completely irrelevant.
I'm not entirely sure what any of this has to do with the question of
allowing non-ascii normative formats, but it seems to be what this
discussion has turned into, so ...
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf